Why has the Administration’s position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?Posted: November 25, 2012
Why has the Administration’s position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?
Well we’ve finally asked the question. What we are asking is that prior to June 15, 2012 President Barack Obama when asked if the President of the United States had the authority by whatever means – Executive Order, Memorandum of Policy Direction, or any other means President Barack Obama replied,
THE PRESIDENT: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.”
We challenge the Latino leadership in this nation’s Congress, executive, and judicial branches to explain to us how such an overwhelming proportion of an identified electorate – regardless of facts – minorities mattered in 2008 for three reasons. First, their relative sizes compared with whites increased in each state; second, their enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate was greater than in 2004; and third, white turn-out for the Republican candidate waned in comparison to the previous elections.
In times that are marked primarily as negative, and the most telling, the mood of the country, two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied (66.6%) with the way things are going in the country. Last fall, 79% said they were frustrated or angry with the federal government; 89% give a negative rating to the national economy; and views of Congress are as negative as they have been in 25 years.
As far as the presidential race, Barack Obama still has only a 47% job approval rating and a 38% approval rating for his handling of the economy. The uptick in minority enthusiasm for the first black presidential candidate resulted in higher turnout rates, and larger Democratic vote margins nationally than in 2004. This was the case in most but not all states, including Nevada and Florida, where Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities turned the tide toward the Democrats.
This disconnect with the nation’s new diverse demographics can be explained by the fact that minorities are, for the present, less likely to be citizens and of voting age. The following statistics tell it all: For every 100 Hispanics in the population, only 44 are eligible to vote. This compares with 78 eligible voters for every 100 whites in the population. (Blacks and Asians are also less able than whites to vote at rates of 69 and 53 per 100, respectively.
The latest national polls suggest this pattern may well continue in 2012. Millennial generation voters are inclined to back Barack Obama for reelection by a wide margin. By contrast, Silent generation voters are solidly behind Romney. This of course represents the overall polarization of age demography; that is, Millennial being the youngest and the Silent being the oldest.
In between the youngest and the oldest voters are the Baby Boom generation and Generation X. Both groups are less supportive of Obama than they were in 2008 and are now on the fence with respect to a second term for the president.
So given this data we ask how – other than by race or ethnicity – could there be a reelection of the incumbent Administration? This is and will remain a topic of discussion until we have a uniform rule of voting. One rule in particular is a voter identification card with a photo I.d. Another is a suggestion that with the implementing of E-Verify machines to verify any person’s national alliance or the right to work in our nation should be accompanied by granting the individual verified with a card similar to this one.